“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

Urbanist project selling well in Denver

The New York Timesdiscusses a new building in Denver that embraces many of the ideals of transit-oriented development. The Spire is a mixed-use condo building that includes retail and recreation space along with residential units. Saqib Rahim explains:

If they wish, the denizens of this mini-world can step outside into the arts district, or they can walk fractions of a mile to three of Denver’s light rail lines. Spire scores a 91 on WalkScore.com, earning the label “Walker’s Paradise.”

To reach paradise, though, Spire residents won’t have to give up their cars. The 33 floors of residences sit atop a “parking podium” eight floors tall. It contains bikes and cars for rent, but most of the room is for 600 parking spaces. The building has 500 condos.

Denver residents clearly enjoy the option to live in a walkable, transit-friendly neighborhood, as The Spire is one of the fastest-selling condo buildings in the country. It exemplifies that walkable development can be achieved in Western cities that have been primarily built around the automobile. The building’s prime location in the city’s downtown Arts District allows it to command high enough prices to pay for an underground parking podium, but Rahim questions whether transit-oriented development should include any parking at all.

While Denver has adopted many Portland-style Smart Growth features including one of the nation’s largest light rail systems, many city residents still rely on and enjoy easy use of their vehicles. Scott McFadden, a Denver area developer who focuses on TOD said in the article:

“You still need it to go to work and to shop and, quite frankly, to take it to the mountains, which is why you live in Denver in the first place.”

The Spire is located in an area of the city that does not have parking mandates, so the garage was built based only on the perceived demands of the building’s potential residents. Furthermore, the underground podium parking mitigates the negative externalities that unsightly surface lots can create for pedestrians. Rather, the building’s ground floor retail serves adds vitality to the pedestrian landscape.

Stephen tweeted this article last week and makes another interesting point on the parking policies at work here. Throughout most of the Denver area, low densities restrictions and high parking minimums are in place, so the only new housing projects in the city center will necessarily be luxury condos. These residents will demand parking regardless of required minimums. I’m not sure I completely agree here — as a Colorado native, it seems to me that many Denver residents of all income levels will place a high premium on parking for the reasons that McFadden outlines. However, Stephen is certainly correct that many intertwined policies affect parking and transportation policies, beyond those directly intended to.

In my opinion, a more important criticism of the project is that the units would likely be selling for much less if the building were not located in the midst of Denver’s $14 million public-private redevelopment project. This will be a regressive effort, benefiting some of the city’s wealthier residents who are moving into this desirable neighborhood, largely at the expense of other less-affluent residents.

The Spire itself represents a building that will allow residents to enjoy urban living even while still maintaining car ownership. While this is great for those residents and urbanist supporters, Denver citizens should not have to subsidize this lifestyle when they are not enjoying it themselves.

About Emily Hamilton

Comments

One correction – the parking is not below ground, it is in the building’s ‘podium’. The first floor is retail, lobbies, etc. Floors 2-8 are all parking. Floors 9-42 are all residences.

As for determining the demand for parking, my question is this – are the parking spaces included in the price of the units, or is the parking ‘unbundled’ and sold separately? To truly understand the demand for parking in a residence like this, you have to unbundle that cost from the rest of the housing cost. While I’d agree that demand in Denver is likely higher than in DC, several developers in DC were nevertheless surprised how much the demand for parking dropped off when trying to convince potential buyers to tack on an extra $30,000 to the purchase price of the condo just for a parking space.

It’s a bit of a stretch to call this an urbanist project. It’s one apartment building. An urbanist project needs to be several blocks and several thousand residential units — and even then it’s doomed to be nothing but a play city for folks who will spend most of their time driving unless it’s surrounded by many more projects on a similar scale. I doubt you can create anything like an urban environment with fewer than 50,000 people living in two square miles. And frankly, you probably need to double those numbers to have everything people need to feel like they’re in a city.

As for the pedestal parking, it may be new in Denver, but it’s the norm in Dallas and the Outer Boroughs and lots of other places — and while it’s better than surface parking, it’s anti-urban because it removes all the vitality of actual human living well above the sightline and replaces it with a concrete parking garage, which is lifeless and ugly. Something that buries the parking, puts offices in the podium and apartments above is the best configuration. The offices and apartments use parking at different times so you need fewer spots than if you built parking separately. As for folks who think it’s insane to put that many parking spots in the project, you’ve obviously never been to Denver. You wouldn’t want to live there without a car.

In Monaco, land values are so high that all condo buildings come with parking decks or underground parking, and the parking decks’ exterior is indistinguishable from that of the habitable space. It’s more expensive to construct, but especially in Monaco, the value of housing is nearly all land rather than capital, so it’s workable.

Commercial buildings have underground parking, so the ground floor is walkable.

I’m not sure I’d use Monaco as an example of what to do. Aside from the old town around the palace and a few blocks around the casino, the place is quite ugly and generally feels dead, rather than feeling like a vital city. That said, I’m not sure how much of the generally lousy vibe stems from the lousy architecture rather than the extreme hilliness or the fact that only a small percentage of apartment owners are there at any time. Whatever the cause, it’s not a city I’d ever spend time in, even if I could afford to.

I’ve only seen 235 Van Buren from afar in Chicago, but it appears to suffer the same problem from decks and decks of parking stacked below the condos. It’s quite possible there’s ground-floor retail and storefronts, but you wouldn’t know from far away.

I live fairly close to this project and I would guess the neighborhood associations near it demanded a certain number of car spaces to keep people from parking on the street. One thing I have noticed as areas start to gentrify is that people moving in seem to bring some of there bad suburban ways with them. One of those things is the belief that every family member needs a car.

I live fairly close to this project and I would guess the neighborhood associations near it demanded a certain number of car spaces to keep people from parking on the street. One thing I have noticed as areas start to gentrify is that people moving in seem to bring some of there bad suburban ways with them. One of those things is the belief that every family member needs a car.

Fewer than 50,000 people live in two square miles around the Spire in downtown Denver? I suppose the immediate proximity of a college campus, not one but 3 sports stadiums, a large performing arts complex, and dozens of government and company office buildings that form the entire skyline of Denver might pull the number under 50,000 by the sheer force of their collective footprint. But there are certainly 50,000 people within a 2 mile radius, probably 100,000.

Whether it is an “urbanist project” depends on your definition. But it seems that by using yours an urbanist project in Denver would be impossible regardless of its location. It seems to me that you need not be located in Manhattan or Chicago to be an “urbanist project”.

Fewer than 50,000 people live in two square miles around the Spire in downtown Denver? I suppose the immediate proximity of a college campus, not one but 3 sports stadiums, a large performing arts complex, and dozens of government and company office buildings that form the entire skyline of Denver might pull the number under 50,000 by the sheer force of their collective footprint. But there are certainly 50,000 people within a 2 mile radius, probably 100,000.

Whether it is an “urbanist project” depends on your definition. But it seems that by using yours an urbanist project in Denver would be impossible regardless of its location. It seems to me that you need not be located in Manhattan or Chicago to be an “urbanist project”.

If memory serves, other than by bus, is there any practical way to get to a grocery store from the Spire? If not, wouldn’t the residents still need a car unless they wish to eat out for every meal? Sure, you can adapt (e.g., shop 2-3 times a week and cart the stuff back on a bike) but easy access to groceries seems to be a dealbreaker for most Americans.

Besides, what’s the point of living in Colorado unless you have a vehicle to get to the mountains?

If memory serves, other than by bus, is there any practical way to get to a grocery store from the Spire? If not, wouldn’t the residents still need a car unless they wish to eat out for every meal? Sure, you can adapt (e.g., shop 2-3 times a week and cart the stuff back on a bike) but easy access to groceries seems to be a dealbreaker for most Americans.

Besides, what’s the point of living in Colorado unless you have a vehicle to get to the mountains?

I’m not convinced its really an ‘urbanist’ project either, esp as the million hands restricting the design make the label problematic. Nonetheless, I was down for the finale of the bike race and it looked really good. And we peripherally know a resident who told me they love it.

I agree that you must travel to get to a grocery store (train will get you there), and it is basic and essential that you travel to the mountains by vehicle. Do you have to own one? no.

It depends on which parts, honestly. The hilly parts and Larvotto are quite dead, yes. But the port area isn’t – it’s way livelier than the casino area. And Fontvielle feels like your standard residential neighborhood.

There is Cook’s Market two blocks away for specialty foods. There is a King Soopers on Speer within walking distance….a pleasant walk along Cherry Creek. King Soopers also offers free delivery to the Spire concierge on the 9th floor where grocery items can be kept in large refrigerators until resident picks them up.

Also, there is a Hertz hourly rental service on the ground floor that can be used for misc trips or even a day ski trip.